Ensuring a Safe Construction Work Site

Traditionally, construction oversight in the field is generally done by walking
around and checking to see how the work is progressing. So, construction safety
follows a similar methodology. The person responsible for managing project
safety inspects the work site for any physical conditions that may be
hazardous.

The safety inspector pays particular attention to the areas where workers
are engaged in their task to ensure that they are performing the work safely.
The inspection is focused on ensuring that the work area, as well as the
workforce, are compliant with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) safety standards.

Traditional Approach to Dealing with Work Site Safety

One of the primary methods that safety management is addressed on a
construction work site is for the safety practitioner to walk the job looking
for physical hazards as well as workers who are performing their work in a way
that is deemed to be unsafe. The safety practitioner, if acting as the
"safety cop," will ask that the physical hazard is addressed
(corrected) and will also inform the workers of their unsafe behavior that
needs to be changed.

The safety practitioner also has the option of "writing the worker
up." The safety practitioner can approach this in a friendlier posture by
discussing the hazardous issue and the concern that the worker may get injured
if they continue working in what is deemed as being unsafe. The safety
practitioner may make a suggestion as to how the worker could go about
performing the work in a safer manner. This puts the interaction in a coaching
mode with the intent of getting the worker's cooperation and
compliance.

Though the reaction of the worker is going to be different in the various
scenarios above, the ultimate expected outcome in all cases is to have the
worker change their behavior from what it is at that point in time to an
improved one going forward. This exchange will in all likelihood fail to
achieve its intended outcome over the long haul for a large number of reasons
endemic to the worker's knowledge, capability, perception, or motivation or
the task demand as well as the design, physical conditions, worker's
perception of the work climate, and the worker's relationship with the
supervisor (foreman or superintendent). Also, there are the worker's
operational practices and goals (performance or production expectations), as
well as organizational policies, expectations, and/or politics, etc.

Besides the inspection function that may highlight that some workers are
working in an unsafe manner, traditionally some form of annual analysis of loss
records also may be used to indicate unsafe work practices. This aggregation of
worker unsafe behavior generally results in the organization's safety
function providing some form of training to all the organization's
workforce. It is training provided based on the findings of symptoms of the
work process rather than a determination of the worker's knowledge,
capability, perceptions, understandings, and/or motivation, as well as a
thorough analysis of underlying causation factors.

Sources of Safety Discrepancies

So far, the discussion has been on what many organizations do to manage
their workforce's safety performance by trying to affect a change in their
work practices and/or behavior. But that approach is looking at only one aspect
of the work process at the operational level. Fundamentally, construction firms
build something, which constitutes their output. To create the output, they
obviously need workers. But they also need systems (e.g., tools, equipment,
planning, procedures, processes, controls, technology, etc.) with which to
enable the workers to accomplish the output (see Figure 1).

Operations is where the organizational output is created. The organization
also has systems as well as people. The people at the organizational level are
the managers, while the people in operations are primarily the workforce. The
systems include a large variety of elements.

At the organizational level, they need a location out of which to work,
tools, and equipment, as well as technology. The organization needs a
structure, defined policies, procedures, and practices, as well as managers.
The workers work in the operations section, which also needs systems. These
include pretty much similar system elements as the organization except they are
focused on producing the output. The organization also needs a marketing
function as well as expertise in effectively managing, planning, organizing,
leading, staffing, directing, and controlling to ensure the organization
operates efficiently as well as effectively.

From this discussion, we can appreciate that the risk of underperforming or
failing to meet goals and objectives lies in both the systems as well as the
people (see Figure 2). Systems invariably have subsystems. The system risks may
come from misalignment within the subsystems. The subsystems' structures,
processes, outputs, and outcomes may not be integrated. The interface between
the subsystems with other subsystems may be out of sync. Over time, the
environment may change, and so the system as designed may produce output that
is inconsistent with the designed intent, thereby producing discrepancies
(e.g., losses, incidents, failures, etc.).

The workforce also may contribute to the operational risk. This could be the
result of a number of things. The more common ones are lacking experience,
having poor work habits, not paying attention to what they are doing while
working, deficiencies in capability, and lack of information or knowledge.
Workforce risk might also stem from peer pressure, the relationship between the
worker and the supervisor, mismatch between the worker's capability and the
task demand, the work climate, or the employee's perception of the
organization, to name a few. People have to utilize the systems in order to
produce the output. The people-system interface might also contribute to the
operational risk.

Both the people as well as the systems contribute to the operational (risk)
discrepancies and so must be evaluated to identify the risks that produce
defects in the following.

Output—constitutes the fitness of the product or service for its intended
use, or the value it provides to the user.

Outcomes—if performed efficiently, effectively, and appropriately, then
the project will be completed on time and within budget and at the acceptable
level of quality, as well as safely, with little or no incident or worker
injuries.

This article looks at the potential risks involved in the work process that
may potentially lead to negative outcomes. These may result from the
following.

Physical environment

Worker factors

Capability

Knowledge

Perception

Motivation

Operational systems

Design

Alignment

System-people interface

Organizational systems

Design

Integration

Effect on people

These can be addressed at either the worker or the system level. The worker
discrepancies are easier to identify than those driven by the systems, but
invariably both have to function at an optimal level. If the organization's
focus is primarily in changing the worker's behavior, then the inspection
and training practice typically performed is still an ineffective means of
accomplishing that.

Dealing with Workforce Safety Discrepancies

To effectively deal with the risks faced by the workforce in performing
their tasks as well as the way that they do perform their task, a process has
to be designed to ensure that this is as risk-free as possible. This generally
involves performing a comprehensive risk assessment of the work (see Figure 3)
as well as defining the work's key task functions (KTF) involved in
performing the work and then using those defined activities to train those
workers who are not utilizing them when perfuming the work. This same list of
activities should be used in performing inspection rather than the OSHA
standards, which are virtually focused conditions rather than a task activity
or focused work process and, therefore, ineffective in managing
behavior.

By performing a risk assessment before commencing work, the project staff
identifies all of the risks they are aware of and plans the work process to
address them. As subcontractors are added to the project, the known risks and
the trades work plans are reviewed to devise a more comprehensive project
safety work plan. The review is revisited before the actual commencement of the
trades work to ensure all risks are identified and addressed in the work plan.
Before the start of the day's work activity, an assessment is conducted to
ensure that conditions have not changed, and the work plan is still effective
in performing the work safely.

The next step is to review the work and tasks of the project to determine if
any worker is exposed to any of the identified risks. If there is such an
exposure, then supervision must modify processes or practices to ensure that
the task can be performed safely. This information must be provided to the crew
and its foreman so that they are aware of the residual risk and the safe method
of performing the work.

To appreciate the reason for the traditional approach, to managing site work
and its safe execution, we need to look at two major studies of accident
causation. One done by Herbert William Heinrich in the 1920s and another done
by Frank E. Byrd in the 1970s.

Mr. Heinrich looked at over 75,000 accident reports and found about 10
percent stemmed from conditions, while 88 percent resulted from worker's
actions or behaviors.

Mr. Byrd studied over a million accidents and determined that only 5
percent were attributable to conditions, while 95 percent resulted from
worker's actions or behaviors.

Since OSHA inspections are driven by standards compliance that primarily is
focused on conditions, this seems to direct more attention to conditions than
actions where the greater body of risk exists. This would indicate that the
organization must devise a process for safe work execution (SWE). This entails
carefully analyzing work activities to identify the KTF, then assessing the
appropriate (risk-free) means of performing them in a much better method of
identifying and managing job-site risks.

To illustrate this, consider the use of ladders, which is common in
construction. The extension ladder is used to go from one level to another. It
is set up once at a given location and used multiple times while in that
location. If set up properly, then it should not create significant risk. The
ensuring that this is done properly is the responsibility of supervision, and
the installation needs to be checked as soon as possible. The greater potential
risk of injury is in the use of the ladder. The only way to safely climb a
ladder is to use the three-point contact (one leg and two hands or two legs and
one hand, in contact with the ladder at all times). So, one of the KTFs in
climbing ladders is to use the three-point contact at all times.

But, every time someone climbs the ladder and carries by hand something
(tools) with them, they are violating one of the primary KTF of safe use of
ladders. So every time a worker carries something while climbing the ladder,
they are doing so at increased risk because one hand is engaged in carrying
something, negating the continuous three-point contact requirement. This is
even more important with step ladders, as they tend to become work platforms
and generally require carrying tools or something else virtually every time one
climbs a step ladder. Carrying something increases the likelihood of getting
injured while climbing a ladder.

Importance of Supervision in Safety Management

The other thing to consider is that virtually everything required to be done
on a construction work site is or should be known to supervision before a
worker engages in it. This is because supervisors have access to the plans, are
aware of the operational goals, and are the ones who plan and oversee the
execution of the work. A thorough risk assessment must be done at this point in
time to identify the risks involved in executing the work and, therefore, plan
the execution of the work in such a way that either the risks are eliminated,
or their outcome is controlled or modified to an acceptable level. Any
remaining residual risk must be discussed with the workforce so that they are
aware of it and know how to effectively deal with it while engaged in
performing their tasks.

After having done the risk assessment and identified the safest way to do
that work, the workforce must be informed of this. The next step is to review
the KTFs with the workforce so as to ensure that everyone knows the best and
safest way to perform the work. Having done that, supervisors must observe the
workers while engaged in prosecuting the work to ensure it is being performed
properly in accordance with the KTF inspection checklist.

The next step in this process involves operant (worker) conditioning.
Conditioning is a type of learning that links some sort of stimulus or trigger
to a human behavior or response. In operant conditioning, the consequences that
come after a behavior contribute to either changing, extinguishing, or
sustaining the operator's behavior.

Extinguishing consequences make the stimulus that is driving the existing
behavior undesirable to the actor. This diminishes and eventually
extinguishes the undesirable behavior.

Changing (modifying) consequences are stimuli that cause the actor to
start or continue to engage in a behavior that is different from the one they
were engaged in before. This generally starts with some form of constructive
feedback that informs the actor that their present behavior is not
acceptable, and a different behavior is suggested to replace the undesirable
one.

Sustaining consequences are stimuli that reinforce the engagement in the
desirable behavior and cause the actor to continue acting in the preferred
fashion.

There are different forms of consequences: feedback, tangible things, and
those stemming from the work process, to name a few. Each type of consequence
has its use or applicability.

Feedback can take many forms, such as verbal, written, graphic, etc. It
can be delivered by different people, such as peers, supervision, others in
management, etc. It can be positive or negative. Feedback is the most
versatile form of consequence.

Tangible things include money or rewards, gifts, prizes, things, etc.
They can involve activities such as luncheons, get-togethers, public
recognition, privileges such as seating locations, parking spaces, etc.

Work process consequences come from the work itself. Performing the work
in the prescribed way may make it easier, take less time, or require less
effort. Devising the task in such a way that it can only be done in one way
results in it being error proof. The beauty of work process consequences is
that it is provided to the worker automatically every time they engage in the
behavior, and it also demands less feedback from the supervisor, thereby
freeing them up to do other management functions.

The next element of the SWE process is to provide the workers with feedback
on how they are doing. If any of the workers are found to be performing the
work in an at-risk way, then those workers must be given constructive or
corrective feedback. The intent of this feedback is to encourage workers to
change their present behavior to one that is appropriate and safe. This
feedback is provided to the worker in a sufficient quantity for as long as it
is necessary in order to affect a change in their behavior to the accepted
method.

Another deficient area in traditional safety management involves focusing
almost exclusively on dealing with workers who are engaged in unsafe behavior.
Feedback can be used to change the behavior of workers, but it can also help
sustain the desired behavior after the change has occurred. Feedback affects
workers in the following ways.

Increases or sustains behavior

The worker gets what they want.

The worker avoids receiving what they don't want.

Extinguishes behavior

The worker gets what they don't want.

The worker does not get what they expect to receive or want.

Workers may revert to their "old habits" of working unsafely due
to changes in work conditions or any number of other factors. This is when
"appreciative" or reinforcing feedback comes into play. This involves
periodically recognizing the worker for continuing to perform their work in the
expected fashion. This feedback helps to motivate the worker to continue
working in the prescribed manner and so sustains the "safe" behavior
over time.

There are other factors regarding consequences that are important to the
effectiveness of the SWE program. It is important to provide far more positive
consequences than negative ones. Everyone must believe that they have an equal
opportunity to receive consequences so that there is a fairness element to it.
The following are other factors regarding consequences.

It can be positive or negative.

It can be given immediately or sometime in the future.

The receipt of the consequence can be certain or uncertain.

The consequence should be meaningful rather than trivial.

It is important to note that for maximum effectiveness, the consequence
needs to be positive and given as soon as possible after the behavior is
observed. The people who may receive the consequence must be certain that they
will receive the consequence regarding their behavior and that it will be
meaningful rather than trivial.

Summary

To improve the safety of the work site, the organization must engage in a
process that will create as risk-free a work environment as possible, as well
as causing the workforce to perform their work in a safe, effective, and
efficient manner. As far as safe work is concerned, this requires devising a
program and process that will lead to the desired outcome. This necessitates
conducting a thorough risk assessment of the work prior to the commencement of
field operations.

Given the site conditions, every task involved in the project must be
evaluated for the safest and "best" way to prosecute them. This
evaluation will generate the key task function for every task on the project.
The workforce should be informed of these findings and asked to perform their
work accordingly. These KTFs should then be used to inspect the work to ensure
that the workforce is actually performing as expected.

To ensure that the work is being done as safely as possible, supervision
must engage in "conditioning" the workforce to perform the work as
expected. This involves providing the different types of consequences in which
to drive the appropriate behavior. This might involve the extinguishing of
inappropriate behaviors, providing guidance through constructive feedback as to
what the appropriate behavior should be. And then to ensure that the worker
continues to engage in the suggested behavior, supervision ought to provide
appreciative or reinforcing feedback.

Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

Like This Article?

IRMI Update

Dive into thought-provoking industry commentary every other week,
including links to free articles from industry experts. Discover practical
risk management tips, insight on important case law and be the first to
receive important news regarding IRMI products and events.